JUDGMENT Krishnan, J. 1. I think the amendment was properly allowed in this case. There is nothing to show that the claim based on the original debt is barred by limitation. That is a matter to be decided in the suit. If it is barred, the suit will no doubt be dismissed. There is no reason why a claim for money due based on the original loan or dealings should not be combined with a claim for the same money as due under a pro-note; in case there is any difficulty in enforcing the note, the party is entitled to fall back on the original consideration. See Duggempudi Nagamma v. Tirumala Reddi 59 Ind. Cas. 363 : 12 L.W. 147. The two causes of action in such a case are not so distinct as the claim which their lordships of the Privy Council were dealing with in Ma Shwe Mya v. Mating Mo Hnaung 63 Ind. Cas. 914 : 48 C. 832 : (1921) M.W.N. 396 : 4 U.B.R. (1921) 30 : 30 M.L.T. 28 : 24 Bom. L.R. 682 : (1922) A.I.R. (P.C.) 249 (P.C.). Their Lordships language has to be dealing with. The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.